Core Ultra 9 285H vs M3 Ultra
Head-to-head specifications
| Metric | Core Ultra 9 285H | M3 Ultra | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cinebench 2024 single-core | 117 | 133 | -12.0% |
| Cinebench 2024 multi-core | 1,122 | 2,753 | -59.2% |
| Cores | 16 (6P+10E) | 32 (24P+8E) | — |
| TDP (base W) | 35 | 140 | — |
- Core Ultra 9 285H is slower than M3 Ultra by 12.0% in single-core and slower by 59.2% in multi-core (Cinebench 2024).
- Core Ultra 9 285H draws less power (35W vs 140W base TDP).
Verdict: Core Ultra 9 285H or M3 Ultra?
Core Ultra 9 285H advantages
- Power efficiency (+75%)
M3 Ultra advantages
- Single-core speed (+12%)
- Multi-core speed (+59%)
Which should you choose?
- Choose the Core Ultra 9 285H if you want a cooler, quieter and more power-efficient build.
- Choose the M3 Ultra if you mainly game or want snappy everyday responsiveness.
Core Ultra 9 285H vs M3 Ultra: which should you choose?
Core Ultra 9 285H — 16-core Intel processor (6P+10E) scoring 117 single-core and 1122 multi-core in Cinebench 2024, with a 35 W TDP.
M3 Ultra — 32-core Apple processor (24P+8E) scoring 133 single-core and 2753 multi-core in Cinebench 2024, with a 140 W TDP.
Core Ultra 9 285H vs M3 Ultra: M3 Ultra leads in multi-core performance. Core Ultra 9 285H is slower than M3 Ultra by 12.0% in single-core and slower by 59.2% in multi-core (Cinebench 2024). Core Ultra 9 285H draws less power (35W vs 140W base TDP).
Gaming and single-threaded work
Games and everyday responsiveness lean on single-core speed. The M3 Ultra leads there with a single-core score of 133 versus 117, so it is the marginally better pick for high-refresh gaming — though at typical resolutions the GPU usually decides frame rates.
Content creation and multitasking
For rendering, compilation, video export and other all-core workloads, the M3 Ultra is stronger, posting 2,753 multi-core against 1,122 in Cinebench 2024. Its 32 cores (24 performance + 8 efficiency) give it real headroom for heavy parallel jobs.
Power and platform
The Core Ultra 9 285H is the more efficient chip at 35 W versus 140 W, which means less heat, quieter cooling and lower running costs under sustained load.
The verdict
Both are credible choices in the processor comparison space; the specification table above lays out every metric so you can weigh the trade-offs that matter to you. Pick the one whose strengths line up with how you will actually use it.
Frequently asked questions
Is the Core Ultra 9 285H better than the M3 Ultra?
M3 Ultra is the clearly stronger overall choice, winning most of the dimensions that matter. Core Ultra 9 285H is slower than M3 Ultra by 12.0% in single-core and slower by 59.2% in multi-core (Cinebench 2024).
What is the main difference between the Core Ultra 9 285H and the M3 Ultra?
Core Ultra 9 285H is slower than M3 Ultra by 12.0% in single-core and slower by 59.2% in multi-core (Cinebench 2024). Core Ultra 9 285H draws less power (35W vs 140W base TDP).
Which should I choose?
Choose the Core Ultra 9 285H if you want a cooler, quieter and more power-efficient build. Choose the M3 Ultra if you mainly game or want snappy everyday responsiveness.
Methodology
Processors are compared on Cinebench 2024 single-core and multi-core scores from published leaderboard results, alongside core configuration (performance + efficiency cores), base TDP, L3 cache, PassMark CPU Mark, 1080p gaming scores and street pricing where measured. Cinebench reflects rendering-style workloads; gaming performance depends heavily on the GPU and the specific title, so treat single-core standing as directional. Figures reflect the leaderboard snapshot on the page date.